Dismissed

Kumari Vijayalaxmi D/O. Ramrao Tatti v. the Director

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2023WP/101901/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought pensionary benefits for her deceased father via writ petition. Court examined Rule 8 of Karnataka Government Servants Family Pension Rules 2002. Finding petitioner aged 40 years ineligible as unmarried daughters must be under 21, petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as petitioner aged 40 years was ineligible for family pension as daughter must be under 21.

Kumari Vijayalaxmi D/O. Ramrao Tatti Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10887 WP No. 101901 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 101901 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

KUMARI. VIJAYALAXMI D/O. RAMRAO TATTI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: H. NO.4, SHIVANANAD NAGAR, GAMANAGATTI ROAD, HUBBALLI-580025.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI SHRIKANT T. PATIL, SRI ROHIT S. PATIL, ADVOCATES)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA MEDICAL COLLEGE, HUBBALLI.

¶14

THE SECRETARY, THE OFFICE OF THE FAMILY AND WELFARE

¶15

DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU.

¶16

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

¶17

Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2023.09.25 10:55:56 +0530

¶18

THE STATE ACCOUNTS OFFICER, ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E), KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R1; SRI P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO D REGARDING GRANT OF PENSIONARY BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF LATE SHRI. RAMRAO S/O. KRISHNARAO TATTI A GOVERNMENT SERVANT.

¶20

(BY SRI ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R1; SRI P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R2 & R3)

¶21

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10887 WP No. 101901 of 2023

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Captioned petition is filed seeking mandamus against the respondent-authorities to grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner on account of death of one late Ramarao, who was a government servant, serving in Health Department.

¶25

Heard the counsel for petitioner and the learned

¶26

counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned HCGP appearing for respondents 2 and 3. The standing counsel for respondent No.1 would bring to the notice of this court that the petitioner’s father served on deputation in the office of respondent No.1 under the order passed by the Health Department and therefore, he would point out that any pensionary claim by the petitioner should be from respondents 2 and 3 and not respondent No.1. He has also placed reliance on Rule 8 of the Karnataka Government Servants Family Pension Rules 2002. Referring to Rule 8, he would point of that a daughter who is aged about 40

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10887 WP No. 101901 of 2023

¶28

years is not eligible to seek secondary pension. Therefore,

¶29

no mandamus can be issued in the present case on hand.

¶30

Rule 8 of the Government Servants Family

¶31

Pension Rules 2002 reads as under:

¶32

“8. In these rules unless the context otherwise requires ‘Family’ means the following relatives of a Government servant, -

¶33

(a) Wife, or as the vase may be, Husband;

¶34

(b) A judicially separated wife or husband where such separation is not being granted on the ground of adultery and the person surviving was not held guilty of committing adultery:

¶35

Provided that the authority competent to sanction the family pension may in suitable cases, for reasons to be recorded in writing, pay the minor children in preference to the widower or widow who is judicially separated.

¶36

(c) Son who has not attained the age of 18 years and unmarried daughter who has not attained the age of 21 years including such son and daughter adopted legally before the date of retirement.

¶37

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10887 WP No. 101901 of 2023

¶38

(d) For the purpose of these rules, a divorced wife or husband of the Government servant shall be deemed to have predeceased the Government servant and shall not be eligible for family pension under these rules, but the minor children born to such Government servant from the divorced wife or husband before the divorce shall, however, be eligible for the share of the family pension under these rules in the manner indicated under Rule 9.”

¶39

Sub-Clause (c) of Rule 8 would be relevant to

¶40

the present case on hand. Under Rule 8, family includes a

¶41

son who is not attained age of 18 years and unmarried daughter, who has not attained the age of 21 years. In the cause title, it is clearly indicated that the petitioner is aged 40 years. Therefore, in terms of Rule 8, which is culled out supra, the petitioner is not entitled to seek family pension on account of death of her father. The petitioner is not legally entitled to seek pension. Equally, the respondents 2 and 3 are also not legally bound to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, no

¶42

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10887 WP No. 101901 of 2023

¶43

reliefs can be granted to the present petitioner. Hence, the writ petition being devoid of any merits stands dismissed.

¶44

In view of disposal of the petition, pending

¶45

interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

YAN

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Kumari Vijayalaxmi D/O. Ramrao Tatti v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari Vijayalaxmi D/O. Ramrao Tatti v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Usha W/O Ramachandra Naik Vs Cheief Executive Officer

Abdul Salam Vs the General Manager

Rajkumar S/O Mohanlal Khattar Vs Sarabi W/O Badesab Jawalgera

Sri Nitesh Shetty Vs State of Karnataka

Deepali D/O Krishnarao Modagekar Vs the Belgaum Urban Development Authority

Shobha W/O Basappa Alais Basavaraj Ullagaddi Vs Vishwanath S/O Basavaraj Alias Basappa Ullagaddi